Email correspondence held by AC Jukes

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033857

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please could I refine my request so it is limited to email correspondence held by AC Jukes.

ORIGINAL REQUEST:
Since and including June 2022, communications between Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes and/or his office with:

1. The Metropolitan Police’s Association of Muslim Police
2. The National Association of Muslim Police

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

In regards to this disclosure, as you are seeking email correspondence held by AC Matt Jukes with The Metropolitan Police’s Association of Muslim Police or The National Association of Muslim Police, I have limited this to the following:

• Where AC Jukes and a representative of an Association is either listed as a sender or recipient in an email message.
• Where one is the sender and the other has only been copied into that email message.

Therefore, any emails which do not meet the above criteria have been excluded as it is deemed to be not falling within the scope of your request.

Exemption Section 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement - has been utilised as some of the information requested contains the contact details and work location of members of staff at the MPS. This information, if released, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

In addition, some of the email correspondence relates to comments made in a confidential forum restricted to members of the public, community groups etc. To publicly release the feedback from this would be likely to undermine trust in the MPS. I have also found that this perceived breach of trust would be likely to discourage participation in the future. Any action that would reduce public confidence in the MPS and make it more difficult for the MPS to communicate with the public.

As a result of the above findings, it has been determined that any disclosure would be likely to harm the Met’s ability to prevent and detect crime and as such, engages this exemption.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, by disclosing individuals professional work email addresses included in a circulation list, could be of use to those who seek to cause harm and undermine our law enforcement functions, by hindering the prevention and detection of crime and this cannot be in the public interest.

The MPS has a duty to enforce the law and protect the communities we serve. In order to do this it is important that our officers and staff are free to perform the role for which they were appointed. By releasing the contact details, i.e. work email address, of these individuals would allow those with a criminal intent to use this information to make inappropriate contact and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would disrupt the work of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS, hindering our ability to both prevent and detect crime.

In addition, to disclose information which relates to feedback received from a restricted setting has the potential to lead to a lack of public confidence, which could ultimately hinder a good working relationship with the community which the MPS seeks to serve. Any release of information which could lead to distrust and a lack of community engagement would ultimately lead to a decrease in assistance being provided to the police where criminal activity occurs.

The release of the contact details for members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS with information that would assist them to do so. The MPS is committed to protecting and serving the communities and citizens of London. In order to do so police officers and staff should be free to perform their duties without any unnecessary disruptions. By disclosing information which has the potential to result in vast amounts of correspondence being received would impede upon the resources of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS and these Associations. This would consequently hinder the MPS’s law enforcement role in its ability to both prevent and detect crime.

Additionally, the disclosure of information which could likely result in a lack of trust in the MPS, would therefore have the potential of less crimes being reported or engagement from communities.

Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused through disclosure.

Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release and publication of the contact details of members of staff at the MPS would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Similarly the disclosure or correspondence which could result in loss of public confidence cannot be in the public interest.

Therefore, it is for these reasons that the balance test favours non-disclosure.

Exemption Section 40(2)(3) – Personal Information - this has been applied to email recipients (with the exception of those below the rank of Chief Superintendent or senior members of police staff e.g. below Band A) and professional email addresses of all individuals. The release and publication of these details would be intrusive, unexpected, unfair and distressing to the data subject(s). In this regard, the disclosure of this personal data would be a disproportionate interference with the rights to privacy of the data subject(s).

Please note that where information has been redacted, this is indicated by xxxxx or ******.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Having given regard to the legitimate interest test, I have found that:

Names of Members of Staff - The requested email correspondence contains the names of persons holding the rank of Superintendent and below and Band A and below. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The employees holding the rank of Superintendent and below and Band A and below are unlikely to expect their names to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request. Given their roles and level of responsibility within the MPS, I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Disclosure

Please find attached 6 email correspondence (4a being an attachment) relevant to your request, these are as follows:

Document 1 - AMP Event at Regents Park Mosque
Document 2 - Internet Article on Conflict Between Israel and Hamas
Document 3 - National Association of Muslim Police Event 29 September 2022
Document 4 - MCB Anniversary Dinner – Friday 25 November 2022
Document 4a - MCB Invitation
Document 5 - AMP Annual General Meeting
Document 6 - Turkish & Turkish Cypriot Police Tensions